1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.---The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 entered into a partnership business to run a Cinema in Sialkot city on the 22nd March 1967 and an agreement of part--nership was reduced to writing on the 22nd August 1967. Under the terms of the partnership deed, the share of the petitioner was one-half and of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was one-fourth each. The petitioner was responsible for the partnership business and to keep the accounts. The site on which the Cinema was built was owned by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 jointly. There were differences between the parties. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for the dissolution of partnership and rendition of account in the Court of learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot on the 13th June 1969.
2. In the suit, he filed an application under Order XL, rule 1, C. P. C. Read with section 151, C. P. C. And prayed for the appointment of a receiver. The learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, on the 14th November 1969, appointed Ch. Arshad Hussain, Advocate, as receiver. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, which was dismissed on the 15th January 1970, with a direction that the possession of Messrs A. A. Younis Bhatti & Co., the lessee in occupation of the Cinema was not to be disturbed, except in due course of law. This order was challenged in revision before the High Court which was dismissed on the 18th June 1971, along with another connected Civil Revision No. 612 of 1970. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
3. Sh. Bashir Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that it was not a fit case for appointment of a receiver as the property in dispute is in possession of Messrs A. A. Younis Bhatti & Co. Who could easily be directed to deposit the lease amount in the Bank. He further contended that after the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed the learned Administrative Civil Judge has given further direction to the receiver which amounts to an order of dissolution of partnership. The learned counsel contend--ed that the trial Court could not pass such an order without first passing the preliminary decree. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. Mr. Razzaque, learned counsel for the respondent, has pointed out that the receiver has leased out the stalls and has recovered a sum of Rs. 17,000 from the stall-holders. He further pointed out that the petitioner was not managing the partnership business properly and, there--fore, a notice of dissolution of partnership was given before the suit was filed.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the learned Courts below have appointed the receive of the partnership business on sound judicial principles. The learned Administrative Civil Judge has issued further direction in order to protect the partnership business.
5. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.